The Wisconsin Rapids Common Council voted 5‑3 on Monday to approve a proposal from LinkThings to install predictive sensors, signs and five years of service at 14 rail crossings in the city.

Councilmember Tim moved to approve the project; Austin seconded. The motion passed 5 ayes to 3 nays. The minutes record the three alderpersons voting no as K. Plewis, Catnaw and Pollock.

LinkThings representatives said the proposal covers proprietary sensors, signs and applications and includes five years of service. “These are not run of the mill sensors,” LinkThings CEO Kurt Brandt told the council, and the system will “monitor 6 different elements, feed information to an information traffic system and then to multiple applications.” A company representative added that the sensors were originally developed as part of an F‑35 fighter project and were later adapted for traffic and emergency use.

Company representatives said the package for Wisconsin Rapids is roughly $510,000 and includes sensors, sign assemblies and software. The city's 20% share would be about $102,000 and, according to staff, would be funded through a tax‑incremental district (TID). City staff described the overall purchase as an 80/20 cost‑share of state/federal funds and local match under the grant program supporting the work.

LinkThings said the design would outfit 14 crossings in Wisconsin Rapids. The council packet and company representative listed crossings at Fifth Avenue, Buono Avenue, Seventeenth Avenue (two locations), First Street North, Engle Road, Industrial Street, Twenty‑Fifth Avenue, Dura Beauty Lane, High Street, West Grand Avenue, Chase Street, Seventeenth Avenue South and Gaynor Avenue.

The company cited a local study and said the system yields safety and economic benefits; a company spokesperson said the study produced roughly a $7,000,000 return on investment when factoring travel delays, business impacts and fuel. The proposal also includes roadside variable‑message signs placed upstream of crossings and a mobile application with a voice alert for users.

Some councilmembers and members of the public questioned whether the system would meaningfully change driver behavior or reach enough users to justify the cost. One councilmember said the project's price tag was hard to reconcile with other reports of sensor costs and raised concerns that the system would benefit only a limited group unless integrated into popular navigation apps. “If it's solely an app that somebody would have to know about to download and install ... I think we're talking about a very limited number of people that would benefit,” the councilmember said.

Public safety officials presented mixed views. Police Chief Figaro told the council he was unsure the department would gain substantial operational benefit: “Well, I don't know that we would benefit from it a great deal, with with the the police department. ... they can see when a train is coming and, crossing is is blocked, and, they're trained how to get around those things.” Fire department leadership, by contrast, said there was operational value in a heads‑up display and routing information for first responders. A fire official who had reviewed the system said the display “could easily tell us where a crossing is jeopardized” and help select alternate routes during responses.

Council and staff also discussed contract length and ongoing costs. A councilmember asked whether the proposal covered three or five years; company representatives and the presentation referred to a five‑year service period, while one councilmember recalled a three‑year figure. Staff clarified the city's share was the local match under the grant and would be ongoing if the council chose to continue service after the paid service term.

Supporters argued the system is a faster, less expensive intervention than building grade separations and could be operational within months of permit approvals. Opponents said the city should spend limited public dollars on more permanent track relocation or other solutions and asked for greater clarity on per‑crossing and ongoing costs.

The motion to approve carried 5‑3. The minutes record the nays as K. Plewis, Catnaw and Pollock. Council direction and next steps include moving forward with grant acceptance and permit work so installations can proceed if grant and permitting conditions are met.